foreign policy. and then a book that looks at how entrepreneurs are using innovation to create successful businesses. and later, government spending. washington journal is next. host: from the associated press this morning, the senate votes today on a bill that would keep the government going and put more money in fema's almost dry disaster relief fund. but unlike the house bill, the senate rejected last week, this one doesn't contain offsets for disaster aid that democrats call "job killing." senate republicans believe they have enough votes to kill the bill. government funding runs out on friday. good morning. welcome to this edition of the "washington journal." we'll get to that story a little bit later in this segment. but first, for the first 45

minutes, we want to talk about a statement that president obama made over the weekend in seattle, and he says that the republican vision of government would fundamentally cripple america. we want to get your reaction to that statement. and for this segment, we're going to be talking only to republican callers. we have a segment last week with democrats, we want to balance things out. so, today, republicans only. your response to the statement by the president that the republican vision of government would fundamentally cripple america. here are the numbers if you want to get involved in the conversation. on the eastern and central time zones, call us at 202-737-0001. and in the mountain and pacific time zones, your number is 202-737-0002. if you've called us in the last 30 days, today would be the day to put down the phone and pick up the keyboard. you can reach us several ways electronically.

send us an email. the address is journal@ c-span.org f. you're on twitter, follow us at cspanwj. and if you want to join in the conversation on our facebook page, that address is facebook.com/cspan. and here is the item. we've got it from the huffing postpost.com. the associated press writes, president barack obama charged sunday that the republican vision of government would "fundamentally cripple america" as he tried out his newly combative message on the liberal west coast. aiming to renew the ardor of democratic loyalists who have grown increasingly disincheant with him, the president mixed frontal attacks on republicans with words of encouragement intended to buck up the faithful as the 2012 campaign revs up.

the president said at an intimate brunch fundraiser at the medina, washington, home of former microsoft executive john shirley, about 65 guests were paying $35,000 -- $35,800 per couple to listen to obama at the first of seven fundraisers he was holding from seattle to hollywood to san diego on sunday and monday. the three-day west coast swing, ending tuesday in denver, offered him the chance to try to reassure some of his most liberal and deep-pocketed supporters. so, republicans only this morning. we're going to be talking about the president's statement, the republican vision of government would fundamentally cripple america. and as we wait for the phones to heat up, we're going to check in this morning first

with lori montgomery of "the washington post." she's an economic policy reporter. we want to talk to her about this afternoon's upcoming senate test vote regarding the continuing resolution and talk to us, if you would, about the strategies for the september 30 shoot deadline that's approaching at the end. week. lori montgomery, welcome to the program. guest: good morning. thanks for having me. host: you've got a headline this morning in "the post," in the politics and nation section, another face-off looms as congress returns. congress was supposed to be off this weekend, and they're back. why is that? >> well, they were supposed to have resolved these issues over agency spending in the big debt limit fight we had in july and august. this was part of the deal that passed and staved off economic disaster by raising the debt ceiling. and then it all seemed to start to unravel. and so we had been told,

everyone expected that this debt ceiling deal would prevent this. we had already decided how much money we were going to spend in 2012. therefore, we were not going to shut the government down on september 30. but now they're having a fight over disaster relief, and this has thrown everything into chaos again. host: also in the article this morning, the democratic-led senate, which on friday blocked a g.o.p. house measure to fund the government through november 18, will vote late monday on its own version of the bill. the bill includes dollars for disaster relief without offsetting spending cuts elsewhere that the house republicans demand. so, sort of explain to us how this is working back and forth between the republicans in the senate, the reps in the house and the democrats on both sides as well. >> well, it seems to have become something of a political football, because initially there were several democrats in the house who said they were

going to support the position of house republicans, which was to increase disaster relief in the c.r., the continuing resolution that they're voting on, but to offset it by cutting a loan program for advanced technology vehicles that has been very useful to democrats in michigan. in the auto industry. so, initially, you have this sort of sense of acquiescence by democrats that, all right, we don't normally offset emergency funding, but to get this through and to avoid another big fight, we're going to do it. but then democrats seemed to sense an opening. there was a newly combative attitude coming out of the white house thaw referred to earlier, and they decided to hold the line on their troops, and they voted against the c.r. in the house, sending the original, in the original vote it we want down to defeat. republicans rallied. they made cosmetic changed to

get their people on board. and then the senate, which had been expected to sort of swallow whatever came over from the house, decide that had they would get their back up and that they would block, which they did. so now we're supposed to have a vote on the democrat i go version, which provides extra money in disaster relief without cutting the loan program or the other things that republicans threw in, but that's expected to fail as well. so over the weekend, what we've been told is there has been communication between the two sides and they are beginning to work on a resolution that would not offset the emergency funds. it would not cut spending elsewhere, but would somehow allow both sides to save face and get the extra money to fema before the funds run dry tomorrow. host: in an article that viewers and listeners can find on the website, washingtonpost.com, your honor the headline "partisanship

flares again, forced passage of stop-gap funding bill," you mentioned that this afternoon's vote is a test vote. what is it exactly that they're testing? >> i think they're testing to see whether the two parties can hang together, particularly republicans, because of a number of people obviously from disaster-hit states who previously voted for a democratic bill, 10 republicans voted for a democratic bill that increased fema funding without offsetting the cost. so, this afternoon, what we're going to find out is whether those people will, in fact, vote against fema funding or not. host: lori montgomery, economic policy reporter for "the washington post." you can find her articles online at washingtonpost.com. thank you very much for being on the program this morning. guest: thanks for having me, robb. host: we're going to continue this segment with our topic for the first 45 minutes, president obama this weekend, in a speech in seattle, said republican

vision of government would fundamentally cripple america. we want to find out what our republican listeners and viewers think about what the president had to say. our first call comes from detroit, michigan. harry, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. unfortunately, i think the president is right. i'm continuing to search and search and trying to find out -- because i can't find anything positive that's coming from the republican party anymore. i'm disturbed. i live near detroit, and because the president stepped in and saved the auto industry here when we had people, especially the person running for president, his suggestion was that we should declare

bankruptcy. what i saw what happened in california with herman king, something is wrong here, you know? i think there was some way the congress could get the whole country straightened out and get us back on the right track because it's nothing positive. i can't see one single thing positive. like i told my wife, we're going to switch parties. we're going to have to find something positive, because right now i can't find anything positive about the republican party. host: let's move on to somerville, south carolina, just up the road from charleston. phil, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, robb. how are you? host: what do you think about the president's statement about the republican vision of government would cripple america? caller: well, you know, robb, when you get down to it, the vision of both parties is going

to cripple america t. has been crippling america for years. our problem is just what you and the other caller were talking about, all the infighting and bickering and back and forth that goes on with politics, we need so badly to limit the terms on these idiots. so that you don't get this situation where the congress turns around and says, if they're going to do this, i'm not going to do that, and you don't have to worry so much about the $35,000 meals that people have to do to raise money in order to perpetuate their control over everybody's lives. host: you think that term limits would reduce the rancor between the parties? caller: absolutely. there's no doubt about it. what you've got right now are people who are entrenched politicians. they've been doing it all their lives. they have no idea on either side what it's like to get out here and work for a living.

host: that's phil in somerville, south carolina. let's move on to fort collins, colorado. david, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: hey, what's up, robb? just got to say, i saw the -- what your segment of the titled, and the very first thing that popped in my mind is, i guarantee you hank from michigan is going to call you and is going to pretend to be a republican. this is really -- i don't know if one of the call screeners is his cousin or something, but this guy calls -- it's been a couple of weeks now, and i know it's the end. month, his meditation's probably running out. he's probably waiting for the welfare check, typical obama supporter. but he's called his wilson, he's called his fred. i'm waiting for him to call henrieta one of these days, i like obama, he's a strong man. he's called as -- host: david, you want to address the topic we're discussing? caller: no, that's a major topic for a c-span junkie. he even called one time as a

saudi arabian immigrant. that's how screwed up he is. host: we're going to move on to cooksville, tennessee, cal on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. happy days today. we're unhappy with what's going on obama. i don't blame him. his talk about he said that the vision for republicans like that is bad for america. well, let me tell you something, his spending, which he has been doing, is bad for america. when you're $14 trillion in debt and a possibility over the next 10e, 15 years or 20 or $30 trillion in debt, hey, that to me is total collapse of a government altogether, total collapse. can't have that. got to have some physical responsibility. that's why i like the republican party. host: more from the item we got from the huff huffingtonpost.com, being reported by the associated

press, talking about a speeched president made in seattle yesterday. he said 2012 would be an especially tough election because people are discourage and had disillusioned with government, but he also said he was determined because so much is at stake. the republican alternative, obama said, is "an approach to government that will fundamental 8 cripple america in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, and that's not the kind of society i want to leave malia and sasha." back to the phones. dayton, ohio, bill, you're on the "washington journal," go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a republican. i just want to bring your attention to something someone has already brought to your attention is that fool that called in from detroit or wherever else there in michigan and makes up the name and doesn't respect the 30-day rule. host: ok. we've got that, and we're working on that. thanks for bringing that up. now, what do you have to say about the president's comment

regarding the republican vision of government crippling america? caller: are you there? host: i'm still here. go ahead. caller: clearly the president is going to say and anything he can at this point to stay in office for re-election. what that he says doesn't seem to matter anymore as much to even his liberal followers. they're kind of tired of his talk as well. thank you very much. host: asheville, north carolina. william, you're on the "washington journal." caller: yes, i'm a republican. and i would like to say to obama's statement concerning the republicans would cripple america, he's already got it on life support, and i'd like to know what it's going to do to bring it out, because he's not

trying. he wants to try to put them back in office. that's his biggest concern right now, and as far as he's concerned, i don't think he has his country's heart. the things that are necessary to keep the country running, he's out campaigning, wasting money to campaign, and i think it's time you leave washington. thank you, sir. host: is there anything the president can do in the next 18 months to change your opinion of him or are you pretty much -- you're pretty much in the republican camp, you're going to go with whatever the republican candidate is? william's gone. let's move on to edith. you're on the "washington journal." edith, you're in -- where are you? edith? caller: yes? i'm here. host: pronounce the name in

south dakota for me, please. so tell me what you think about the president's statement regarding the republican vision of government. caller: he's a farce. we got to stop spending money. i hope he gets impeached, and i do not care for him at all. he has the wrong attitude for the united states. he's going to ruin us. host: we've got an op-ed this morning from the "new york daily news" by mike lupica with the headline, "he's waving goodbye to a second term," showing president obama arriving in seattle yesterday under gray skies, and he may see a lot more of them if the economy doesn't turn around. lupica writes, obama was dealt a bad hand. only the politically challenged would suggest otherwise much the problem is he has played even worse than his cards and

turned an electoral college map that was a blue state dream for him against john mccain into a minefield, no matter who the republicans run against him. if he wants to believe it was just the economy that did this to him or the bug-eyed screamers from the right-wing media or even republicans in congress general you're flecting in front of the tea party, then maybe obama doesn't make it back to grant park in november of 2012. grant park is where he made his first acceptance speech after being elected president. caller: i just wanted to tell our democrat friends from michigan the president didn't save the auto industry, the taxpayers did against most of our will, and that was for his union that got him in there in the first place. you have to look at the state of the top democrats and where they're from.

i don't know how democrats think we can go on spending and not cutting anything. according to my democrat neighbors, they just a couple of days ago got a range on free stamps. why are they getting a raise on food stamps when they already get too much? host: john in seattle, washington, what did you think about the president had to say? caller: thanks for taking my call, kind of nervous. well, the president said we've been -- we went from clinton to bush, obama now, and all three presidents have been doing a very good job of crippling america. bill clinton signed w.t.o. in seattle, and that's one of the reasons we have no jobs in this country. i'm a republican because i support ron paul, and a lot of

democrats agree with what he's saying. so just take a look at that. i mean, it's going to cripple america. obama has done nothing but spend everything he puts his debt, patriot ads, the wars, spending bill, like obama did everything. the republicans should be very happy with him. host: what's it been like the last 24 hours with the president in town? caller: well, he's been here before. it's one of his favorites spots. host: we got another op-ed from the "new york times," pennies from many.

host: back to the phones. quantico, virginia. tom, you're on the "washington journal." caller: hi, appreciate the chance to add some input. i want to tell you, there's a lot of marines doing the right thing because they believe in this country. they're there are valiant young men out there dying and living

because of their belief in the country, and i'm just really tired with what's going on in washington where these guys are concerned about themselves. no one is going to face the music and do what's necessary. and as far as obama's comments, you know the old saying that defense is a good offense, i think that it's what's going on. i don't believe in what he's doing. i don't believe it's good for the country. that's about all i can say. type tom, what were you doing in helmand provesnins when you talk with the marines, the folks in the army, do they express any sort of opinion about how president obama is acting as commander in chief versus what kind of support they're getting from republican and democratic house and senate members up on capitol hill? caller: my impression is the marines i spoke to overall are conservative and not happy with obama.

i can't speak for every marine out there. and i think my sentiments are reflective of a good portion of them. host: springfield, vermont,off, your response. caller: yeah, thanks for taking my call. i'm just curious about where this republican outcry was when george bush was saying that he was going to spend the surplus that we had back in the early part of the century to fund the afghanistan war. you know, nobody was saying nothing, saying that was a terrible idea. host: the national average is $3.51 a gallon, down from a high of $3.98 in early may. last week's plunge in oil prices could push the average to $3.25 per gallon by

november, analysts say. host: mid loathian, illinois. vickie, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: yes, i just want to say, that i think more people should give obama a chance, because just like all the other presidents, right now he's trying to go into other countries and trying to help our people, and i know it seems like a lot of people don't see it, but it took us this long to get into debt and all this -- host: vickie, we're going to leave it there. republicans only this morning. cleveland, ohio, you're on the "washington journal." cleveland? caller: thank you for taking my call. a year ago, i switched to be a

republican from democrat. and i'm just calling to realize the some of the g.o.p. we spend a lot of money on war. the money that we have to pay back has increased the deficit. as a republican, i will not vote for anyone to take us to war and will not pay for it. host: long valley, new jersey. anna, what did you think about what the president had to say? caller: i'm a lifetime republican. i just wanted to say that so many of your viewers, i would love to pretend that voting in a new president is going to resolve all our economic woes in this country, but that is not the case. it's what's causing the problem started way before obama was even elected. it's simply outsourcing.

i'm a manufacturer, a small manufacturer here in the u.s., and all our corporations have moved out. the majority of them are in mexico, india, and china. and until that's resolved and we make it a more business-friendly place here in the u.s., we're not going to change anything, regardless of what party is in office. that is our biggest problem right now. we are not creating the jobs. they're being created by major american companies, but not here in the u.s.. abroad. because this is not a friendly place to have a business anymore. and that has to be changed regardless of who's in office, democrat or republican. we can try and blame him for everything, but that is not fair and ridiculous, because that's just not the case. this problem started many, many years ago. it started when the republicans were in office. and i am a lifetime republican who actually volunteered for the reagan campaign and the

bush sr. campaign. but we have to get jobs back into america some way or another, and we have to start collecting taxes from the major corporation that is no longer exist here. they're abroad, so therefore, they're not contributing to the american tax base. we used to collect 33% of our taxes from these major american corporations. we are now collecting 6%, and who's making up the difference? the middle class american workers whose jobs are being outsourced. host: anna in long valley, new jersey. we're going to read a tweet from obama games, the day obama took office, he crippled america, so what else is new? if you're on twitter, you can follow us at @cspanwj.

illinois, bill, you're next on the "washington journal." caller: yes, i'm from illinois. my feelings are is that obama, from day one when he got into office, is just politic for president, made it to washington, run for president, made it to the president, said we need a change, there has been no change. all he's doing now is politicking for the presidency. he goes over to england, tells everybody i'm leaving you there to take care of this. we don't even try to run this country. host: bill in illinois. "the washington post" this morning, congress set to expand defense contractor's compensation cap. this is by brian friel, who writes for bloorg government.

host: back to the phones. jacksonville, florida, william, what did you think about the president's statement regarding the republican vision of government fundamentally crippling america? caller: well, the republicans are crippling america, but yet he never takes responsibility behalf he's done to america already. and not only that, you look at

what's going on, i mean, there's no -- i mean, he's not allowing any kind of oil drilling going on. he's not allowing any kind of jobs to be -- he's just hindering everything that conservatives are trying to do as far as doing anywhere in america. it would require thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs , and you got all of us starving to death, and even in the car business, he stays busy . host: let me get your response to this tweet, frustrating listening to republican callers complain about spending when it was obama who wanted to cut $4

trillion and the republicans thwarted that action. william, what did you think about that? caller: well, everybody states that -- host: you know what? we're having some problems. we're going to move on to ottawa, illinois. patty, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. my opinion on some of this stuff that's going on right now is the funding and the stuff for the new green thing, housing, that's been going on, and then also, with the democrats, how they have unions. the unions are breaking the backs of america's businesses, what's going on down in south carolina with boeing, and then we had the bridge being built over in california, they

outsourced half of the stuff over to china because it was like a billion dollars. i'm not sure the exact amount, but they could have done that here with american workers, but it was still cheaper, even with shipping, to go over to china because of what it cost to pay a union worker. i belong to a union for 10 years, and i'm not saying it's all bad, but there are things that have to be redone, and then the other thing that needs to be done is the tax code. we need to get a lower tax rate for businesses, to get businesses back here in the united states. thank you for letting me have the opportunity to talk and have a great day. host: got an op-ed from susan collins, republican senator from maine, writing in the "wall street journal," the economy needs a regulation time-out is the headline. senator collins writes --

type back to our discussion this morning. we've got about another 10, 15 minutes in this segment. president obama, in a speech over the weekend, said republicans' vision of government would cripple america. our next call comes from california.

greg, you're on the "washington journal." greg, you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: oh, he was just going to say that -- i was just going to say that america was a little bit crippled when he took over, but i think all of obama's policies have done nothing but cripple america more and put more people out of work. all the things he's saying he wants to do now with his new second stimulus were part of the first stimulus promises, and it didn't happen. so why would we repeat the same mistake again? i know here in central california, there's hundreds and hundreds of farmers that are hurting, and the new e.p.a. regulations are going to make it really tough for them to even just plow their fields without being fined for turning up dust. host: what would bring the economy back, do you think? what can the president, either with congress or without congress, do to help bring the economy back? caller: well, i think one of the first things you can do is roll back some of the

regulations he's got going. i mean, man, he's stifling business with paperwork. i saw an interview with one guy last night, and i can't remember his name, but he has -- well, relatively small business. i think it was between 500 and 1,000 employees, but he's got a whole section that is defeated just to make sure he's in compliance with regulations. and i think he's burdened us with too much regulation and too much spending. host: ed in toledo, ohio, go ahead. caller: good morning, young man. i wanted to say how c-span has fundamentally, along with the president and the democrat party and the republican party, has fundamentally crippled our constitution by not citing the words of our constitution. you say republicans and democrats. well, i happen to be a constitutional republican. that is article four, section four, u.s. constitution. we are a republic with a

republican form of government, but every time someone says democrat, you afree with them. well, our founders, what you do, you call noah webster a liar, you also call james madison a liar. host: ed, we seem to be going off the rails here. caller: no, this is the fundamentally crippling of our constitution. host: we're going to move on to hart ford heights, illinois. richard, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i think president obama is ruining this country with the regulations, especially from the e.p.a., and also now, i'm a veteran, and i use the v.a. hospital system, and he wants to raise the co-payments for every veteran and also add a $200 a year tax to it. less than 1% of our population is in the military.

now he's trying to ruin that, too. thanks a lot. host: from the "new york times" this morning, back from iran, u.s. hikers share tales of strife. the two american hikers who were held in iran on espionage charges say they kept their days strictly regimented, running laps, discussing literature and quizing each other in an effort to stay physically and mentally fit while in captivity. they spent 781 days that way in the notorious evin prison in tehran. host: phoenix, arizona. alex, you're on the "washington journal." caller: the first comment i want to make is i want to follow up on the comment you just made. those hikers were spies.

they had no business being on the border there. and if we had quality an iranian on the border of the u.s.-mexican border, we would to sent them to gitmo. host: all right. what about president obama's statement regarding the republican vision of government and fundamentally crippling america? caller: well, president obama ran on hope and change in 2008, but since the economy is bad now, he cannot run on his own record. so all he can do is to vilify the republicans. but in this case, the republicans depnt have power in the first two years of his presidency. so how can he blame the republicans when he was completely focused on obamacare and not about jobs and the economy? host: we've got some other news this morning from the "financial times" in their market section. the headline, debt sales set to

hit u.s. banks. u.s. investment banks are facing losses on financing commitments for buyouts and other deals struck before the recent market turmoil as they down about $200 billion in loans and junk bonds. host: back to the phones.

west palm beach, florida. jim, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. yes, i have to admit i am a stealth caller, neither republican nor democrat, and i am rather upset that you have a republicans only call-in. it's hard to understand how our country has fallen into this type of what george washington called fractionalism. host: we're going to leave it there. we're asking for just republican callers this morning. and our next call comes from kenwick, washington. lee, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i would like to respond to the lady by the name -- host: go ahead, lee. caller: by the name of ann, who was blaming the evil corporations about shipping jobs overseas. she ought to take a look at the history, the unions have forced our steel industry to leave this country. the unions are forcing all the jobs, all the corporations to

go overseas. look at what they're doing with boeing. they're forbidding a company to move within the united states. they're taking it to court. so these people that are so strong on their unions, including president obama, who supports them 100%, should take a really good look at what they're doing to have also destroyed our educational system. once they got their way in to the unions, look what has happened. look at the history. look what it was like before. so that's basically my statement. thank you. host: lee in kenwick, washington, is our last caller in this segment. we want to thank all our callers for participating. in 45 he wants we're going to take a look at the role of government in helping startup companies. but first, or coming up after this break, we have a look at republican candidates and foreign policy. first we want to tell you a little bit about c-span's student cam documentary competition.

it's underway for 2012. the competition is open to middle and high school students grades sixth through 12. this year's theme, the constitution and you. the video must be five to eight minutes in length, show more than one point of view, and must include c-span programming. the deadline to submit your video is january 20. grand prize winners get $5,000, with other prizes totalling $50,000 in all. go to our website, studentcam.org for more information. we'll be right back with more of the "washington journal." >> most all of google's problems are self-inflicted because they don't play by the rules in the game, and they don't obey the law. >> if you're wondering whether or not you're getting an honest result from google, all you got to do is move that mouse and go

to bing or yahoo or facebook, and you can figure out whether you're getting the fair results. >> a look at competition and google's business practices with google monitor and former federal trade commission bureau of competition policy director david balto, tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> should always start with the assumption that when a politician or a crew crew is saying something, they're not telling you the truth. now, they may be telling you the truth, but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> he's an eagle scout, held a brief stint of "mother jones" magazine, directed and produced three of the top 10 grossing documentaries of all time, and also a best-selling author much his latest, a memoir, is "here comes trouble." sunday, your chance to call, email, and tweet michael moore live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public

affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters, keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt, and follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media sites. search, watch, and share all our programs any time with c-span video library, and we're on the road with our c-span digital bus and local content vehicles, bringing our resources to local communities and showing events from around the country. it's washington your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: josh keating is the oshte editor over at "foreign policy" magazine and is here to talk about the 2012 republican presidential candidates and their views on foreign policy. welcome to the program.

guest: thanks for having me. host: during one of last week's republican presidential debates, it featured an increased discussion on foreign policy. which candidates benefited most -- which candidate benefits most from a shift to foreign policy issues? guest: i'd say that's probably jon huntsman, who's not really a major figure in the race right now. he's kind of in fourth or fifth place, but he can really run on his record as ambassador to china and as somebody with a large amount of foreign policy experience, which, frankly, the other candidates don't have. host: is there any particular aspect of foreign policy, for example, the mideast, the far east with jon huntsman, southwest border issues, or our relationship with europe, that one candidate can use to separate him or herself from the rest of the group? guest: well, rick perry has been talk ago lot about immigration, and as a border governor, obviously that's sort of his core area. he has a very different take on

it from other candidates. he's thought of as this conservative, but he's the only one in the debates who's saying it's simply not practical to build a fence on every inch of the border as some other candidates are saying. he's supported several programs , sort of head start type programs, to help immigrants have access to the texas educational system, and so he was kind of getting hammered on that in the last debate, but it's one area where he kind of -- there is some daylight between him and the other candidates. host: is there a coherent obama foreign policy that the candidates as a group seem to be focusing on running against? guest: well, i think the words you're going to hear a lot are leading from behind, which was a comment that an obama advisor made in a story in the new yorker earlier this year to describe how the administration is responding to the revolutions in the middle east, and obviously leading from behind doesn't sound very presidential. it's the kind of thing he's going to get consistently hammered on. what's important to remember is

that whether you're listening to president obama or these candidates, that the foreign policies they run on don't necessarily tell you much about how they're going to govern. president bush ran on being humble abroad. he spoke out against nation-building and embarked the u.s. on one of the largest nation-building projects since the end of world war ii. president obama, if you had to define him early in his campaign, it was on his opposition to the iraq war and on his stated willingness to talk to autocratic governments and perhaps sometimes anti-american governments, and we've seen him both scale up the war in afghanistan, you know, participate in an intervention to remove muammar gaddafi, and call for bashar al-assad to be forced out of power in syria. it's important to remember that often foreign policy, they're responding to crises to these so-called 3:00 a.m. phone calls and their stated positions in

these debates don't necessarily tell you that much. host: we're talking about the 2012 republican presidential candidates, their thoughts on foreign policy. here to discuss that with us is josh keating, "foreign policy" magazine associate editor. if you'd like to get involved with the conversation, 202-737-0001 for democrats. republicans, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages via email, twitter, and on our facebook page. throughout the discussion, we're going to be showing some clips of various republican presidential candidates and what they've had to say regarding their views on foreign policy or how they perceive foreign policy as has been exhibited by the obama administration. first like to take a look from last week's debate with former governor romney talking about president obama being euro-centric and how he gets

his inspiration from europe. we'll take a look and then get a response from joshua keating. >> what president obama is a big-spending liberal. he takes his political inspiration from europe and from the seerblist democrats in europe -- and from the socialist democrats in europe. guess what, it's not going to work here. i believe in america. host: josh keating? guest: well, this first the first time he's use this had line of attack. he used the phrase european a number of times describing obama. that's kind of a convenient shorthand, because it has a domestic and international component. it's both big government, liberal, pseudosocialist, and a certain timidity in foreign policy. it will be interesting to see how long he can really keep up this line of attack, because interestingly, european governments are, of course, most of them are embarking on

austerity programs and cutting quite a bit of spending. and we've seen the french government take the lead in intervening in libya. so this kind of shorthand of european as passivist and liberal, i'm not sure how well it holds up anymore. host: when candidates talk about trade in terms of foreign policy, is it more of a domestic issue for them or a view of foreign policy or a little bit of both when you're talking about trade? guest: i think it's mostly domestic issues. we had several callers talking about the outsourcing of u.s. jobs overseas, and, you know, that's always going to come up. but it's also, you know, especially with a rise in china, mitt romney in particular has hammered on this point that he's not going to allow chinese currency manipulation to create a trade imbalance, and so there is that kind of great power competition aspect to it.

it was interesting, not the last debate, but the one prior to that, to see jon huntsman kind of counter that and say that the least productive thick we could do would be to have a trade war with china. host: our first call comes from pennsylvania, bill on our line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." guest: good morning, gentlemen. josh, i have a question for you. you said that obama and bush were unable to keep to the foreign policy that they campaigned on. do you think that ron paul, if he were elected, would be able to keep to the foreign policies that he's presented? and also, why is it that these other two guys and so many of them can't keep to their foreign policies that they campaign on? guest: well, i think it's -- you know, the general rule in u.s. elections is that candidates are elected on their domestic policy, but get

remembered for their foreign policy. and i think that's generally been true. the last election was a bit of an exception to that rule. president obama was first distinguished by his opposition to the iraq war, so john mccain is very experienced on foreign policy, so that election did turn quite a bit on foreign policy. but generally speaking, in these races, candidates are trying to appeal to a domestic audience and sort of sell themselves on domestic concerns, whereas when they get into office, they're responding to crises and situations that erupt, and often the sound bites that they used on the campaign trail simply don't work anymore. and you mentioned ron paul. ron paul is a real outlier in this republican field as somebody who favors large-scale defense cuts and sort of pulling back u.s. bases overseas and quickly ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan, which none of the other

candidates have really committed to. you know, i don't know if he'd be able to stick with that if he were elected, but, you know, it's been very interesting having him in this race and to see the other candidates respond for him in these debates. host: ron paul, also during his time on the debate last week, talked about linking the currency reform and also a tougher line on immigration all together. i'm going to take a look at what he had to say and then move on. >> this leads to capital controls and they lead to people control. so i think it is a real concern. and also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody's going to be in the databank. you say, oh, no, the data banks are there for the illegals, but everybody is in data bank. that's a national i.d. card. if you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. what you need to do is to

attack their benefits. no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birthright citizenship. that would get to the bottom of this a lot sooner. but economically, you should not ignore the fact that in tough economic times, money and people want to leave the country. that's unfortunate. host: josh keating of "foreign policy" magazine, sort of a mix of foreign and domestic policy from ron paul? guest: he was following up on an earlier statement where he said a fence won't just keep immigrants out, it could also keep americans in, which is kind of a surprising statement and widely remarked upon. you know, i think he's sort of staked out a very clear position on immigration. a lot of the candidates are trying to sort of outdo each other in how tough they can seem about immigration in these debates. you know, it's interesting to see that the candidates with the sort of most experience on border issues, rick perry, is very different from the other candidates in this regard and

also governor huntsman as well. you know, i wonder to what extent they're sort of going back to george bush's immigration policy, which was not quite as exclusionary, and he was sort of looking a little more long term at demographic trends, the degree to which latino voters are going to be a major factor to elections in the future, and potentially republican voters, and, you know, it's interesting because none of these candidates are looking at that and saying that maybe this is the constituency that should be addressed as well. host: we're talking republican presidential politics and foreign policy. david in silver spring, maryland, you're on our line for independents. go ahead. guest: good morning, guys. -- caller: i have two comments i'd like to get your comment on first. first question is, do you think that president obama --

host: we're going to move on to kansas city, kansas. matt on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hi, thank you to c-span . host: let's move on to new hampshire. keith is on our line for republicans. go ahead, keith. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. just got some facts here. i'm kind of fed one everybody saying how the republicans' vision is going to cripple the country. january 3, 2007 was the day the democrats took over the senate and the congress. at that time the dow closed at 12,621. gpped for the previous quarter was 3.5%. unemployment rate was 4.6%. the annual budget deficit was $161 billion. host: keith, we've moved on from that discussion and we're talking about foreign policy and the presidential candidates. this is what we're talking

about. caller: ok, then you don't want to hear what i got to say, i guess that speaks volumes too, huh? host: let's move on to baton rouge, louisiana. tyrone on our line for independents. caller: gorge. how are you doing today? host: what are your thoughts regarding the republican presidential candidates? caller: several things very quickly to mr. keating. first, ron paul didn't want a fence. he was the one who said that if you put a fence up, it only not keeps people out, but it also keeps those who are in from leaving. second point i want to make is about the israeli foreign policy in the middle east. i think ron paul is the only candidates that just don't want to give israel an open key to the candy shop, and we're just not going on with anything that they do. i'm more israel. i recognize israel, and i recognize them as a country. but he is the only one, when he

mentioned the rights of the palestinians, he got booed by his own republican counterparts. my thing is, if you just -- if you don't address this and have a broader mind set about, you know, a more fair and balanced approach, that's never, ever going to get solved. i'd like his comments on that. thank you for c-span. host: joshua keating? guest: that's true, and ron paul does have a different policy, especially on aid to israel. we've seen the other candidates trying to position themselves very pro-israel, particularly after last week, you know, mitt romney said that there should be no daylight between the u.s. and its allies. now, of course, all countries have, you know, somewhat differing interests, as there's no daylight between them. but we're going to continue to see israel as a major factor in this campaign. you know, it's interesting to

see president obama at the u.n. last week addressing palestinian statehood and taking a very -- much more pro-israeli line in the speech than he has in the past, and, of course, the u.s. is planning to probably veto the palestinian statehood bid. it's interesting to consider how much of what's driving his considerations campaign issues and to what extent that dreams the u.n. was partly a campaign speech as well. host: telegraphing officially or unofficially from officials in israel as to who they'd like to see as the republican candidates, or would they refer to just continue dealing with president obama? guest: well, i think prime minister netanyahu has definitely been closer to the republican party in the past. in his visits to washington, he's had very sort of warm meetings with republican leaders. it's obviously not been quite as close with president obama. as for which candidates, i don't know to what extent they're really taking a position. but, you know, several of the

candidates have visited israel and are definitely all trying to position themselves as the most pro-israel of candidates. host: back to the phones and our discussion with joshua keating of "foreign policy" magazine. new york, eleanor, caller: i wanted to comment on the candidate who spoke about immigration. this country is built on great immigrants and on the backs of great immigrants. it to say we will close our doors sounds like foolishness. we need to create better policies to except those who have stayed in america and made an honest living and tried to be productive. children have graduated high school and our college students. many of them are good members in their community, never did

anything wrong. our stores have never been closed -- our doors have never been closed. we need to control the things that go beyond our borders. there needs to be laws to protect them, too. they should not live in america and be afraid. host: that is eleanor in new york. the current governor perry and rick santorum talk about something similar in a discussion about mexico. we will take a look of that. >> one question. have you ever been to the border with mexico? >> the answer is yes.

>> you are going to build a wall or fence and then go to tijuana does not make sense. we know how to make this work. aviation assets on the ground. the federal government has not encased in this at all -- has .ot engage in this at alled we'll stop illegal immigration. we will make america secure. host: joshua keating, what did you think? guest: the candidates are trying to make a name for themselves in these debates. rick santorum has been the

defender of conservatism in a lot of these debates. whenever ron paul talks about cutting the military budget, rick santorum has been engaging them and again in these long back in force on foreign policy. host: this morning in "the washington post," they talk about the tightening border in one of their editorials. talking serious about immigration. "is it worth spending billions of dollars?"

host: the overall thought is that republicans should claim a victory and move onto something else. guest: it is hard to build and defey fence. no matter how we build up the border, it will not stop the flow of immigration into this country. i think there's a need for a more nuanced discussion in this country. host: joanne in san diego. caller: my concern has been ever since president obama opened cairo, that he has wanted to weaken the role of the united

states in the world. we saw that in libya. initially he try to find a way to get gaddafi outp. i am concerned the republicans are becoming more isolationist. i think we should be supporting democracy in the middle east. this war on terror, i view this like the cold war. the american will was so strong. we need a republican leader who will stand up and say the problems and yemen, we will help fight terrorism in yemen. we have to be in it for the long haul. we need a powerful republican leader. host: joanne in san diego.

guest: the influence that the tea party movement is having on the republican party. the tea party is mostly focused on economic issues. the question becomes, is defense funding going to be on the table? traditionally the republican line has been a strong military any strong u.s. presence abroad is a priority. those parts of the budget should be off the table in terms of these discussions. you see rand paul talking about putting military spending on the table -- you see ron paul talking about putting military spending on the table. host: you wrote that ron paul said there is a difference between military spending and

defense spending. guest: i think there is a distinction. not just weapons systems. i think he refused -- i think he views this as a way to create jobs and as much as a domestic program as anything else. he wants to separate building high-tech weapons systems from addressing the u.s. national security. i think that's the distinction he is trying to draw. host: joshua keating has been an associate editor at "foreign policy." he also blogs. you can follow him on twitter.

you can also follow us on twitter twitter.com/cspanwj. caller: good morning. host: thank you for waiting. caller: what happened to all the good informants america had in these foreign countries. we have been losing troops. candidates like obama and george bush, they have no idea that those foreign countries are run by a tribe of people. will we get a presidential candidate -- getting americans killed. guest: it is striking to see the degree to which the war in afghanistan has not been a major issue in this election. august has been the deadliest

months so far. we saw the assassination of a former president and a major figure in the negotiations with the taliban. the economy is going to be the major issue. it will be jobs who determines who will be the next president. i think it has been striking the degree to which -- the question of what these candidates plan to do to bring the war to an end has not been a major topic of debate. host: there was a class on the u.s. role in afghanistan in the debate last week. >> after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from afghanistan. this country has given its all.

what remains behind, some element to collect intelligence. we will have to do that in every corner of the world. >> very quickly. our country is not six -- that doesn't mean our country is sick. the bottom line is that we should be fighting wars to win, not fighting wars for politics. [cheers] not giving the troops what they need. unless we change those rules and make sure our folks can win, then we will play politics with our military. host: joshua keating.

guest: i think huntsman is put himself as the thinking candidate. if you listen to these candidates, they all say to bring the war in afghanistan into a close. we will bring troops home when it is prudent. i would not put that much stock in what we're hearing in terms of withdrawal plans. it will be determined by political factors and conditions on the ground. there isn't that much room between them on this issue. host: ken from new york. caller: good morning. could we ever have peace in the middle east if, like rick perry

advocates, given support to israel. i would like to see peace on both sides of israel. this seems to be something that israel does when we get close to peace. ariel sharon launched into jerusalem to vanilli the palestinians -- lawns into jerusalem to humiliate the palestinians. the israelis seemed to put settlements into the palestinian territory. guest: i think that israel is a potent political issue in the

u.s. and subbing the candidates can continue to stake out the strongest position in order to criticize the president. how much daylight there is between democrats and republicans have a process is real, i'm not sure there's much difference -- between democrats and republicans with israel. host: david in new york. caller: i do not see anybody from the democratic party running against barack obama or with barack obama or against the republican party, which tells me that barack obama or those republicans -- i do not believe barack obama can defend the border with mexico. i did not think he can't defend the border in israel.

he is not capable of doing it. it is israel's issue. host: this morning we're talking about the republican candidates and their views on foreign policy. caller: it is not a party decision. it is a domestic issue. host: randy in spokane, washington. caller: none of them are talking about going back to isolationism or closing down our borders. it is a matter of getting rid of the people who came to the country illegally breaking a law. we should remember that. it is not to prevent new citizens from coming in. host: we will get a response

from joshua keating. guest: i do not think that expelling the number of illegal immigrants in this country is practical in the long term. there are thousands of people that are an integral part of our economy. it is hard to say we can kick people out. there will be differing proposals on that. a lot of what is discussed in this debate is in terms of prevention and building fences hire, which i did not think is a long term solution to the problem. host: this is michele bachmann. >> on every inch of the southern

border. that's what we have to do. we should have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books. i would not allow a taxpayer- funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children. end the magnets for illegal aliens to come into this country. host: she talks about building the fence, does she talk about the cost it would take to do this kind of a thing? guest: that remark about benefits is a dig at governor perry. michele bachmann is from the wing of the tea party movement -- she has criticized barack

obama for cutting defense spending. i do not know her specific views, but i imagine she would view that as a priority. host: larry from tennessee. caller: thank you. i would like to know just for the republicans plan on going to war if they get back in as president. the last 48 years, we have had three presidents from the state of texas, two of them republicans, and they have put ofin four wears, anwars, and to those wars are still going on. that is all they want to do. that's how they create business.

the wealthy, they invest in the wars. host: brine from pennsylvania -- brian from pennsylvania. caller: i was calling about the presidential candidates and their foreign policy. if any of them was half as good as george marshall was as secretary of state after world war ii, we would be better off. he had a better grasp of that. then the cold war took over. staying on the inside.

it is turned into the almighty dollar. we have very true statesman as far as i'm concerned. we had trouble into pakistan and through the middle east. host: we will leave it there. joshua keating. guest: there is a sense the politics ends at the water's edge. that changed during the cold war and it is not true now. a much more partisan atmosphere surrounding foreign policy today. host: several candidates have referred to ronald reagan. what is it about reagan the

candidates think will win over voters? guest: it is the notion of national greatness conservatism, it.david brooks calls it was a different world when one of reagan was president -- when ronald reagan was president. it doesn't tell us how they would respond to counter terrorism or the threats we face today. host: 10 minutes on our discussion. we're talking with joshua keating with "foreign policy" magazine. paris, texas. caller: good morning. i am speaking to mr. keating.

do you believe most of the candidates really want the immigrants coming in, or do they want to get money off of them? i have a question about governor perry. i don't appreciate him running around the country along to everyone about what he has done and what he has attempted to do with the border in texas. no amount of money will help our country keep people from coming in. what we need to do is to have better policies to transfer better and more easily through our country rather than letting them come. and then pouncing on them when they get into trouble. host: joshua keating.

guest: i think it is unfortunate that the debate on immigration selection has become a question of build a fence on every inch or build a fence on almost every inch. i did nothing that is a very nuanced discussion of the problem. i think a lot of the problem is that these topics are kind of shoehorned into the general purpose debates. if you have five minutes on foreign policy, you're not going to get a very detailed discussion on this. you will get the sound bite answers. perhaps if there were single- topic debates, we might have a slightly better sense of how to address these issues. host: tony from richmond, virginia. caller: thank you for c-span.

i would like to say that your guest is very knowledgeable. one thing he wanted to say but did not say. like when the young lady was talking about a strong republican leader for our foreign policy. it is not being talked about because obama has taken not off the table. he has been a strong leader and a decisive leader. he ordered the sniper shot on the pirates. he ordered the go-ahead against his own advisers. that is the difference. he does what he thinks needs to be done. that is a strong leader.

people are not running circles around him, making decisions for him. guest: i disagree with you in that president obama does not take views from his advisers. not every president can keep track of all foreign policy. if you take libya, secretary clinton and other people and the state department were pushing strongly for intervention there. the defense department was not as enthusiastic. the president was weighing his options. clinton and those kind of won on that debate. you bring up a good point.

they will never use the word " leading from behind." they get touchy when you bring up that phrase. less confrontational approach is what has allowed these revolutions in egypt and tunisia to take place. he has overseen the ouster of gaddafi with no u.s. casualties and little in the way of spending. he will not talk about what is going on in afghanistan. i think it is surprising that republicans are not talking more about that because there's more room to criticize the president on that fund. host: several papers have been talking about five or putin this morning -- vladimir putin.

they say he could extend -- a leadership swap. hasn't been any discussion of any significance about how they would deal with russia either putin ith r or without running the country? guest: improving relations with russia. there has been that much discussion about russia from the republican side. what you'll hear is that they will probably attack him and saying he has sold-out u.s. allies, countries like georgia and poland. i would expect us to hear that line from them. host: neal from florida.

caller: i don't believe that any of the republican candidates nor president obama has a foreign policy. it seems to be political jabberwocky. our involvement in iraq and afghanistan -- we are supporting these nations. we do not know who we're dealing with. look what happened. we don't have a clear handle on things. this nation is not able to change a cultural mind-set. that has me going on for thousands of years -- that has been going on for thousands of years.

there is something wrong with the picture. why can we say, enough is enough. get our boys and girls home. thank you, gentlemen. guest: i think we're starting to hear thinking along those lines from the republican party. you mentioned before, who are we dealing with in libya? the president will say there was intelligence gathered about the transitional national council. i think the conclusion was that there were people we could deal with in the libyan rebel forces.

not everyone on the republican side disagrees -- agrees with that. michele bachmann said that the vast majority of the libyan rubbles are islamic militants who support a state in north africa. she is making that charge. the debate has been measured in libya. they will see how it will play out. host: dianne from maryland. caller: thank you. i did not understand why people in afghanistan. get it you do not know who your enemy is.

either finish the job or call the people home. vietnam should be a prime example of doing things halfway. you need to act on the intelligence and finish the job. everybody complains about war overseas. host: dianne in maryland. guest: that is partly why it is unfortunate we have not seen more of the debate on afghanistan. there is the case for a drawing down, security considerations to take into account. dew point you make is probably how a lot of voters are thinking about the war -- the point you made. host: our last call. caller: i think palestine should

become a state. joshua keating.i guest: the majority of candidates would say they favor a palestinian state and that they and in favor of the two- state solution. just say you support a palestinian state is one thing. it does not mean much if u.s. policy in the middle east does not change. host: joshua keating from "foreign policy" magazine has been our guest. thank you for being on the program. host: we will go back to open phones in a while. we will look at some articles

and the paper from this morning. this is from "the wall street journal" about congress being back in session this week.

host: this is another look at the story from "the washington post." host: john boehner rallies votes. also, in "the new york times," flood victims getting fed up with congress, is the headline. "we lost everything," mr. kelly says.

the senate is scheduled to take a test vote on spending on a stopgap spending bill that includes money for disaster relief. host: let's go to the phones. open phones. we will talk about just about

everything. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i have a comment about is zero and north africa -- about israel and north africa. they all have a revolution. russia had a revolution before stalling to go over -- before stalin took over. the lady from california who said what a great thing it was the we had a cold war. now we can have this war on terror. the cold war fell apart because russia educated a lot of people and there was demand for

more freedom from the population. host: new hampshire is where virginia gov. bob mcconnell is headed. it's been reported in the " richmond times-dispatch." he will headline a gop fund- raiser tonight in new hampshire. it is a high-profile forum for bob mcdonnell. his predecessor decided to run for president. a chance for him to make an impression. host: florida on new line for

republicans on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i have an idea of for securing the border. host: what is that? caller: i am talking about the border, 2,000 miles or so. every 25 miles, set up something with drones. you have drones' running up and down the border. every 25 miles, you have any military, maybe 10 or 15 or 20 people. the sites you have -- 80 sites, 20 units. host: why do you think that

would be more effective than what they have going on right now? caller: what is on the border right now? 73 miles of a fence. runningking about drones the entire length. each 25 miles having personnel. host: nathan in vienna, virginia. caller: good morning. i have been a democrat for the past 10 years. i think i'm going to vote republican. with all the populist running for position, pulling our troops out, it is not economic viable or politically viable for a number of reasons.

i'm thinking about voting for buddy roemer because i think he is the only candidate who understands the serious problems we're facing in this country. host: we will leave it there. "pittsburgh post-gazette." the woman were granted the right to vote -- women were granted the right to vote. host: back to the phones. florida, william.

caller: good morning. there is some misinformation. on the issue of a palestinian tate -- in the middle east, the romans were first called israel palestine. if u.s. them to point to a would pian, there wo pointyey oint to a jew. the jews were scattered throughout the world. eventually the british took over. now it is palestine. if you 18 two-state solution -- if you want a two-state

solution, look at jordan. host: we believe that there. coming up, a discussion on your money. after the break, helping startup companies with eric ries, the author of "the lean startup: how today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses ." he will be here to talk to us about the government's role in helping startup companies. get your updates on all three c- span networks by following c- span now on twitter. hit follow to get all of our scheduled updates. follow "washington journal" at

twitter.com/cspanwj. >> maxine waters says she is not sure who president obama was talking to what he told black americans to quit complaining and follow him into the battle for jobs and opportunities. she says she found the language "a bit curious," when the president called the audience to put on your marching shoes. she said the president did not address hispanics in such a blunt manner. president obama can see is promoting his jobs plan in silicon valley and a town hall- style event hosted by linked in. herman cain says his victory in

the florida republican straw poll was authentic and was not a statement by voters against rick perry. he said the voice of the people is more powerful than the voice of the media. herman cain won roughly 37% of the vote. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bios, and the latest polling data, plus links to c- span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> he ran five times, the last time from prison. he changed political history. he is featured in "the contenders." live on friday, at 8:00 p.m. eastern. get a preview at our special website for the series. >> most all of google's problems are self-inflicted because they don't play by the rules of the game, and they don't obey the law. >> if you're wondering whether or not you're getting an honest result from google, all you got to do is move that mouse and go to bing or go to yahoo! or go to facebook and you can figure out whether or not you're getting the fair results. >> a look at competition and google's business practices with googlemonitor.com's scott

cleland, and former federal trade commmission bureau of competition policy director david balto, tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators," on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: eric ries is the author of "the lean startup: how today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses." welcome to the program. what is a lean startup? guest: we use the word lean about manufacturing. this is an idea that started in japan. but lean was all about efficiency. the biggest problem is that the

plant they are working toward does not make any sense at all -- the plan they are working toward does not make any sense at all. figure out working backward about what we need to know and we need to build. host: is there a place for government involvement in this lean startup process? guest: government is a different beast. there are important roles for the government for startups to play. i think we're starting to see the signs of innovators inside government to make government more efficient. host: give us an example. guest: to bring new consumer

protection bureau -- the new consumer protection bureau. that is a startup. it has to start somewhere. trying to use that agency is an example that where they have to start with a gigantic plan. they could soar with individual class of problems -- just credit card fraud. maybe certain geographic areas. test out the problems that citizens have. you have the learning process in parallel with a more established plan. host: we're talking about the role in helping startup companies with eric ries, the author of "the lean startup: how today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful

businesses." you can get involved in the conversation. here are the numbers -- we have a special line for entrepreneurs -- host: you talk about the audacity to of zero. guest: when you have no results at all and accomplish nothing, that is the easiest time to raise money for your project. nothing invites imagination about all the amazing things that might happen.

when you start to get any information, you have a small number of customers, that starts to invite questions about whether big numbers are going to materialize. that is part of the human desire to see an overnight success. we try to give entrepreneurs in methodology for evaluating whether they are making progress even won the vanity metrics -- even when the vanity metrics are quite small. --t: we have a lesist pick any one of those and explain why they are a leaned startup company. guest: zappos. they are leading online retailer for shoes.

when they began, they did not have and robert website -- an elaborate web site. they went to a shoe store. they took pictures of shoes and would sell a online. there was a minimum viable product. they did not invest in a big division. they tried to build an online shoe store. they wanted to see if people would buy shoes online. that was the beginning of them being able to build a large business. host: our first call comes from massachusetts from susan. tell us about your business. caller: i created a business of

making faery and princess addresses for little girls -- fairy and princess dresses. they were kind of fancy and easy to take off. they're called princess pinafores, which i have trademarked. my business was very successful at first. i had reps in california and new york. the problem was going to trade shows and finding by-products copied by other people -- and finding my products copied by other people, even in canada. i was calling my stores to see if it wanted more dresses.

he said that he only carried this particular company now that copied everybody in dress up products. why is the nothing on jupiter's can do in the government to protect these -- why is the nothing that entrepreneurs can do to protect them? host: susan in massachusetts. guest: this is a difficult problem. all of us want our ideas to be protected. we think we should get protection. most intellectual property protections work more towards big companies than small companies. the legal overhead is incredibly expensive and difficult.

most competition does not rely on those protections except to the narrow case of a breakthrough. we're talking about a fashion breakthrough and what is popular with kids. there is nothing the government can do to prevent copying. we to figure out how we get so far ahead of what other people are doing that we don't care if they are copying because what they are copying is what we did last year. we learn what new customers want. host: american hero sends us this tweet. guest: i want to be super clear. the government does not finance start-ups.

if you want to promote on jupiter ship -- of entrepreneur ship, the biggest policy levels they care about at silicon valley is the noise the stuff you see on cable news. if you have an idea, you do not -- you can get a visa to come to the states. things like the health care reform law. then a one fundamental change -- they made one fundamental change. you are not going to put your family's health care at risk. startups require a lot of failure. that is my story, too.

we discourage entrepreneurship. host: william spoor, virginia -- williamsburg, virginia. caller: i own -- it is for education. i been to over 1000 schools. i have 30 stationary bikes that the children as young as four years old. we take the capital investment, staff training, heating, cooling, busing, retirement, all hr problems out of the facilities of the education program. ifind that i'm so good that exceed all outcomes that are

being produced in schools today with health and physical education. i am able to move into a neighborhood, a challenge a corner that is under despair from crime and drugs, and make a healthy impact for those children who are in those terrible environments. you are speaking about the government. i solved a lot of problems that the government says that they are concerned about. every time i approached a government official and demonstrate routinely whether it be a police chief, social services, the schools, parks and recreation, how my facilities do so much for so little and i'm routinely discriminated against because these folks see me as a threat to their position. i'm only hoping that you can share with those of us out here who can demonstrate at a local

level that they can improve community health with low-cost, science-based programs. please respond to that. host: randy, i assume when you take these vehicles to the schools that the school system that is paying for it. if you go into a neighborhood that is separate from the school, who pays for that? caller: i find funding from church groups, interested social service groups, community service boards. i am for-profi. t. host: randy in virginia. guest: what a cool example of the desire to make the world a better place using the for- profit model to enact social

change. the status quo is firmly entrenched. i see the exact same behavior in the companies. existing status call institutions are used to listening to their customers and doing things the way they have always done it. they cannot imagine when something new comes along. ipads are displacing laptops. they think they don't have to worry about that. the same thing is happening here. it is important to spend time with early adopters. people with the most acute form

of the problem, the most willing to take a rest. to you, your idea sounds good. but to them, it seems all crazy. then you can prove that the model works. take that to community groups. they are looking for those early experiments to try to scale them up. carolina.in pine hearnorth caller: there's been a fundamental shift in america, which i think contributes to the jobless economy. if you're doing something with semiconductors that is no longer in the u.s., is in asia. all the major companies have

jettisoned their research and development. you cannot get support from the government even though they say energy is the number-one thing. there used to be a law in energy. -- to cannot approach a venture-capital list in a pure energy situation. in switzerland, they have a more vibrant r&d. there is a whole portion of entrepreneurs, involving capital equipment which is not software, there is simply no place to turn. i believe the government has a strong role -- not necessarily support -- but to go in and

evaluate through a national laboratory and provide the risk mitigation that you could then take it to the private sector. host: does the growth of ligne start up change the nature of venture capitalism -- lean startups change the nature of venture capitalism? guest: the big challenge is, as we bring entrepreneurship to more and more people, as we democratize it, as the semiconductor revolution affects more injuries -- industries, how do we evaluate objectively which ideas are working, which ones are not? it used to be, you look at a price -- promising technology and invest for the best. now it is not just come it is the technology working? can the entrepreneur find customers and make the technology work for them? host: anthony in titusville,

florida. you are on "washington journal" with eric ries. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find the biggest impediment to starting a small business is local government, not federal. the problem i had early on when i tried to start a business was government zoning laws. you cannot manufacture items in your garage anymore. even if it is a small amount, small rate, no chemicals. they just make it impossible. bill gates and steve votyak could not start their business in today's -- wozniak could not start their business in today's zoning environment. how'd we work around these things? -- how do we work around these things? guest: you used to have to own a factory just to build a product and see if it worked.

entrepreneurship used to be reserved for people who could make that kind of capital investment. with the increasing globalization and technological change, you do not have to own a factory to make a physical object. in a lot of cases, you can rent the means of production from an actual factory by the hour. you can rent computing time by the hour. you can get a 3-d printer that you can put in your garage and actually manufacture an object for just a few hundred dollars. the total amount of cost required has radically come down. the federal, state, local government needs to understand that a lot of our law had to do with where you set up a manufacturing facility. that was a big deal for community. it is very different from your garage tinkerer, who may be able

to build just a few of an item to see if anybody wants it. there are several items in the new jobs bill that are designed to help with that. i think public policy makers are starting to get the memo about this. we have a long way to go. host: we want to take a look at a couple of elements, including the $1 billion early-stage innovation fund, financing business between $1,000,000.4000000 dollars, -- $1 million and $4 million. talk to us a little bit more about the start up america initiative issue -- startup america initiative issue and your concept of the lean startup.

guest: i am really excited about startup america. it is unprecedented. the administration should be commended. entrepreneurs ship is about taking risk, being innovative, taking risks -- entrepreneurship is about taking risks, being innovative. having a federal policy that says that we understand what entrepreneurship is and that we want to promote it is really important. most of the start-ups are public-private partnership, using private-matching dollars to make sure that dollars are directed towards entrepreneurs that have real value creating power, not just some government official pet project. we have been working with companies -- may have been working with large companies to work with -- they have worked with large companies to work with entrepreneurs to get them

access to tools that normally only big companies would have. there is a mentor ship part of the program. there is a techstars network. it started in boulder and is now in several other cities. we take promising entrepreneurs and put them through a mentor sship program, where they work with experienced entrepreneurs to increase their odds of success. we print entrepreneurship to a lot of communities where it is currently -- we bring entrepreneurship to a lot of communities were discreetly only happening in a haphazard way -- where it is currently only happening in a haphazard way. host: next a caller from fort lauderdale.

2002,: i had an idea in which i called "the interpreter." my idea was to put the computer in the phone. i gave the company $2,200 for a patent. i received a two-year retainership back. i spoke with the guy. i said, i gave you $2,2000 for a -- $2,200 for a patent. he said the disk was too big for the phone. they waited me out. now there are all these

blackberries and stuff. do not give people your ideas. host: we will leave it there. we're starting to run out of time. you have mentioned patent reform. what you think of that in light of the plight of callers like that? guest: part of the problem with the system is that it directs entrepreneurial inch energy -- entrepreneurial energy away from creating things. 14 years would be considered very aggressive schedule to bring a new product to market. today, products -- what has happened in our landscape for conspirators, software, bones -- or computers, software, phones -- what has happened in our

landscape for computers, software, phones, it is a completely different world. we have an opportunity for more fundamental reforms that would be friendly to small businesses. i think that there are paintings that are incredibly easy to follow -- patents that are incredibly easy to file. it is a mess. host: we got this tweet that touched on something you brought up earlier. let's go back to the bphones. kansas city, kansas. tell us about your business, then your question or comment for eric ries. caller: it runs from chicago to

san monica. it is a paper product, an atlas- sized book, with small yellow- page sections through the book. that is the -- the revenue stream for the product is that we sell the book can we sell the advertising -- and we sell the advertising. we started online. we called a few banks, in the worst time ever in my lifetime. the bank said, ok, show us something. we sold a few ads. the first was for a hotel in st. louis on route 66.

we sold the city of joplin. we started getting placements. we did not accept money. we just got signed orders. we went to the bank and showed them what we were doing. after a long time -- i am cutting it short on details -- we started the business and we're rolling. one of the most important parts of our business is that everything is made in america. the book is printed in america. there are things we have made anin america that have expanded the business. host: we will leave it there. in their case, they're not

necessarily reinventing the wheel, but they have found a place where they can supply a product. guest: that model that he talked about is what we want everyone to do. prove the business in micro scale. show the that works with a small number of customers -- show that it works with a small number of customers. use that initial attraction, experiment, to scale up to get additional resources. if you think about what we are making the america -- we all talk about the manufacturing crisis in america. you never hear anyone talk about the shortage of manufactured goods. we have more stuff than we know what to do with. we make or stuck in america than at any previous time in our history -- make more stuff in america than at any previous time in our history. we have become so productive that we do not need as many

human beings to do the routine work on the assembly line. the question of our time, especially for policy-makers, is what should those people do with it will not be wrote, mechanical work -- if it will not be ro te, mechanical work? this requires retaining and learning new skills -- retraining and learning of new skills. host: is this a viable argument for candidates to be making, rather than, we're going to bring back large manufacturing, steel, whatever? is it more liable to say, well, we're not going to do that, but we're going to make it -- viable to say, well, we're not going to do that, but were going to make it more viable -- we are going to make it more viable for people to start small businesses?

guest: i do not know if it is more reliable -- more viable. there is a provision in the jobs bill that would allow people with permanent -- collecting permanent unemployment insurance to convert the unemployment dollars into a startup business loan. they would go to people who are becoming job creators. that is the same cost, but the payoff is potentially huge, not just in terms of employment, but in terms of investment. we're going back to get serious about this. i do not want to take away from the macro-economic debate. if i had one critique of the keynesian approach, it is different depending on what jobs people do. i think entrepreneurship is the

path to creating more real value creating jobs. host: eric ries is not only author of the "the lean startup." he is harvard business school's entrepreneur in residentce. battle creek, michigan. you are on the "washington journal." guest: i wonder how we protect the people like the lady who was manufacturing the aprons and then someone stole her idea. how do we publicize the name of her company so that we can give our business to her? guest: good question. the nice thing about the internet, social media, twitter -- right now, as we speak, there is a whole side conversation going on where the real information about what is going on with entrepreneurs can go out. we are at @leanstartup at all

times on twitter. a startup is not an idea. a startup is an organization that creates a product under conditions that we call extreme uncertainty. it is not just having a great idea. it is a kind of management, a special kind for these new, innovative products. host: our last call for eric comes from colorado springs, colorado. caller: when i went to school, they said that more than 80% of small businesses fail in the first year. it's not going to lead to a lot of unpaid loans -- isn't that going to lead to a lot of unpaid loans? guest: absolutely. we need to fill faster so we can learn faster so we can get to success -- fail faster so we can

learn faster so we can get to success faster. imagine that 80% of the loans are defaulted on. right now, we get no return on the unemployment insurance. that is 100% of the loans you can consider in default. imagine getting at 1 per -- 20% rebate on all of the unemployment. that could potentially be very exciting. host: the book is called "the lean startup." r, eric ries, has been our guest. we continue our series with a look at job-training programs. first, another news update from c-span radio. >> 17 past the hour of 9:00 a.m. eastern. authorities said american has

been shot dead by an afghan working for the u.s. government in an attack near the u.s. embassy in kabul, afghanistan. another american was wounded. officials have said, on condition of anonymity, that the building where it happened as a cia officer. turning to the economy, stock futures are rising on hopes that european leaders will come up with a plan to resolve their debt crisis. finance officials met here in washington this weekend and agreed to take bolder steps to fight the problems. ahead of the opening bell, the dow futures are up about 65 points. the u.s. postal service is dropping its rule to feature only dead people on postage stamps. los thune -- it will soon start to consider american musicians, sports stars, writers, and other nationally-known figures. before, everyone except u.s. presidents have to be dead for five years to be on a stamp. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> it should always start with the assumption that, when a politician or ceo is saying something, they are not telling you the truth. they may be telling you the truth, but the burden should be on them to prove it. >> he is an eagle scout, directed and produced three of the top 10 grossing documentaries of all time, and a best-selling author. his latest is a memoir called "here comes trouble." he will be on "booktv," sunday at noon. >> he founded several labor unions and represented the socialist party of america as candidate for president, running five times, the last time from prison. eugene debs lost, but he changed political history. he is one of 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders," live from the deb'' home on friday.

c-span.org/thecontenders. >> the c-span that works, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, an american -- and american history. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it is all available on television, radio, online, and on social-media sites. search, watch, share anyatime -- anytime with our digital library. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: every monday at this time, we have a segment called "to your money," a chance for you to find out -- called, "your money," a chance for you to find out about what federal programs are doing and how much it cost. we have andrew sherrill with the government accountability office. welcome to the program. guest: it is a pleasure to be here. host: how many federal job- training programs are there now? how much is spent in those programs? guest: we identified 47 programs administered by nine different federal agencies. they are designed to provide enhanced job skills for individuals, to help identify job opportunities, and also to help place people in jobs. what we have found is, since the

last time we look at this in 2003, there has been an increase of about 5 million. in 2009, these programs were spending about $18 billion. the increase is due primarily to the temporary infusion of funding through the recovery act in 2009, which provided additional, temporary funding for about 14 of these 47 programs. the problem is that, of these 47 programs, that there seems to be some overlap in these programs. some duplication in these programs. is that correct? guest: that is correct. we looked at overlap. for each of these 47 programs, we asked the officials that administer them to identify which particular services -- we have a menu of about 12 different kinds of services. things like job placement assistance, job training, identifying job opportunities.

we asked for each of those 47 programs, what are the particular services your program provides? we put all that information together. 43 of the 47 programs -- 44 of the 47 programs overlap with at least one other program, in that they provide similar services to a similar target population. one thing to keep in mind -- this is at a very high level -- there can still be differences between programs in their eligibility requirements, the types of services they provide, or the objectives of the program. this high-level overlap is assigned to look deeper -- a sign to look deeper for potential duplication. we took three of the biggest programs that all serve low- income individuals to look more deeply at those programs. what we found is that each of those three programs maintains separate administrative

structures to provide some of the same services to low-income individuals. host: so, the overlap is going to cost the taxpayers money, correct, that ordinarily they would not spend it there was not an overlap? does the overall efficiency of the job-training programs -- are people getting the training that they go to the programs to get? guest: that is a very important issue -- what we know about the effectiveness of these programs? the are two parts to the story. one part is that almost all -- vera are two parts to the story. -- there are two parts to the story. one part is that there are increases in the earnings and wages that are measured. almost all programs measure that type of performance outcome.

relatively little is known about how effective the programs are. how is the program accounting for positive results? half of the programs have had no kind of performance review since the last time we looked at them in 2004. only five of the 47 programs have had what is called an impact study, which is something researchers do to try to assess and isolate the effect of the program itself. they use a random assignment, a control group to see the people who use the services. very few programs have had those kinds of evaluations. even those that do, the results tend to be small or not repeated every year. guest: we're talking about federal job-training programs with andrew sherrill. he is with the government

accountability office. he is there education and workforce issues director -- their education and work force issues director. why is it that these programs are so expensive? what is at the american taxpayer is not getting for the money that is put into these -- is it that the american taxpayer is not getting for the money that is put into these programs? guest: when we look at the 47 programs, the most frequent populations that have programs targeted to them, there are eight programs for native americans, six or veterans, five

for youth -- six for veterans, five for youth. the job corps program provides services to residential facilities, which is a very different way of serving youth than the work force investment act youth program. there are differences in how the programs serve the population. once again, it is important to do the studies, to get the information, to see what the effects are of the different programs, and what is the cost- benefit ratio we are achieving for the taxpayer. little is known in this area. host: we are talking with andrew sherrill of the gao. if you want to get more information, give us a call.

there is a special line for those who have participated in federal job training programs. the report that you are the author of, "multiple employment and training programs -- providing information on: locating services and consolidating administrative structures -- on co-locating services and consolidating administrative structures," can be found online. how many programs were created by the recovery act? guest: the recovery act provided additional funding for 14 of these existing programs, like the dislocated worker program. it is important to keep in mind that was a temporary infusion of funds.

once those funds are used up, we're back to the existing situation with the levels of job funding for these programs. host: among the various agencies, the labor department, i believe, has 21 job-training programs. is that correct? education, 11. health and human services, 7. the interior department, three. are these examples of overlap? guest: it is important to pay attention, especially when programs are for similar populations and are administered by different federal agencies. it provides a potential for fragmentation of programs. when different programs -- for example for veterans. the department of labor has several programs for veterans. the va has programs for veterans. it is important to really get a

sense of how well are the federal agencies coordinating when they deliver those services. when we looked at these programs across federal agencies, in many cases, the federal agencies were telling us coming yes, we do coordinate across the programs -- telling us, yes, we do a coordinate -- we do coordinate across the programs. host: our first call comes from hicksville, ohio. gwen is participating -- or has participated in a federal job training program. caller: yes, i have. i was disabled by an aneurysm stroke and was given an opportunity to go to jobs work program which sponsored a job coaching and retraining and a job evaluation to see if i could

go back to work, because it was so extensive. i enjoyed the program. my question to you is, there are so many programs, that's true. having worked int hat -- in that sector myself, there was a lot of times when the tanf program could have been changed to accommodate, but you could never get past the state congress to go to the federal congress to ask for it to be consolidated. how would you work that out? guest: that is a very good question. the tanf program is a temporary assistance for needy families. it is given as a broad range, so

there is a blot -- broad range of flexibility. one of the areas where we identified opportunities for greater efficiency -- in several states, texas, florida, utah, for example, that have consolidated at the state level their welfare agencies providing tanf services and their work force agency. for example, utah had six different state agencies providing these services. they have consolidated them into a single agency in the same thing was done in florida and texas -- into a single agency. the same thing was done in florida and texas. they realize cost savings, more streamlined services for people -- realized cost savings, more

streamlined services for people, and were better able to serve people. there were some promising initiatives on that front. there is little that is known about to what extent those states strategies might be a model for use in other states. one of the things we recommended to the federal agency, the department of labor and health and human services, was to provide more information about these kinds of strategies to see what the results have been, what the cost savings have been, what the challenges have been, so we can better inform other states as what -- as to whether they should use these kinds of things or not. host: our next caller is from shelby township, michigan. go ahead. caller: we have a lot of unemployment. there are a lot of areas that gettingt -- we're not

trained in. my question is, why cannot we use some of those -- these opportunities for people who are unemployed to actually put those people in positions to work with jobs on, let's say, construction work, what have you? why can we use -- can't we use some of those folks, train them into project opportunities, to where we can start using these people and get some use from the funds that are funding them for unemployment purposes? guest: that is a good question. one thing to keep in mind. under our current work force development system, states and localities have a lot of flexibility. they receive a lot of different funds from the federal government, but they have a lot of built-in better --

flexibility to use those funds in the way that best meets their local labor market needs. the challenge for the federal government is how to keep some accountability while giving local and state areas a lot of flexibility. in reference in the particular thing you are mentioning, one of the features of the president pasto proposal, called -- president's job proposal, would have people receiving unemployment insurance do some training, short-term training with employers. the key idea is to give the employer a tryout. would this be a good fit for the employer and for the worker as well? that is one among many different aspects of strategies that the president has proposed in the dodd proposal. proposal.s

mentorship programs can be an important opportunity to improve the skills of those looking for job opportunities. i do not think we know a lot about the results and effectiveness of those kinds of programs. for those seeking entrepreneurial activities to start their own businesses, often it can be helpful to have a mentor who really knows the business and can guide them. it is something worth examining. host: back to the phones. you are on the line for "washington journal." caller: i would like to know why we do not connect employers that need employees with people that have a general education but do

not have an expertise. use the money for apprenticeship programs. directly match the need of the employer with the need of the displaced employee. guest: you raise a fundamental issue. the work force in investment system, the workers investment act put a premium on offering job opportunities through one- stop centers and having those people employer -- be employer- driven. one job we have is to look at some of the most promising and innovative practices at one-stop centers across the country, to be able to better deal with and

be responsive to employer needs in their areas. we're looking at areas that have identified a need for greater skills, what collaboration's they're doing -- what collaborations they are doing. this last week, the administration released almost $40 million in a jobs innovation effort to get just the kind of thing you are talking about. it would establish about 20 different areas, regional clusters, that really a time to go after key employer needs -- attempt to go after key employer needs and bring together collaborations across a broad range of participants. it is another initiative.

host: our next call comes from florida. felicia has some experience with the federal job training program -- alicia has some experience with a federal job-training program. caller: i was with the program here in florida for three months. the government was paying for us to get training and to work in different sectors within the different communities. when i did that, when the money ran out, these companies did not hire. there is a big federal investigation of all the money that was spent, it was not spent wisely. officials were spending money on cars for themselves, paying their credit-card bills, all of these other things. the people that were on these programs were left holding the bag. we are laid off again. we have no other resources. i am not sure it -- is there anybody regulating these programs? this money is being spent

frivolously on foolishness. host: thanks, we will leave it there. andrew sherrill? guest: that is an important point. state and local areas have a lot of flexibility in how they spend the funds. nonetheless, it is critical that there be management controls in place to be sure that funds are not being used with the in -- used wastefully. the states have an opportunity -- a responsibility to oversee the bonds that it delegated down -- funds that get delegated down to the local areas and have mechanisms in place to make sure those things do not happen. we have a federal responsibility to do oversight of the state agencies. berceuse post -- there are supposed to be internal controls, management controls. our funding is increasingly more tight.

host: we're talking about federal job-training programs in this edition of "your money." our guest is andrew sherrill of the gao. our next call comes from savannah, georgia, anthony, go ahead. caller: he stated there is very little known about the waste and abuse of this money, this federal money. the study they have done -- he knows little about it. why is it that the first thing i would go after, to find out where this money is being wasted and used, then fine tune the system? the money we have been throwing -- that has been thrown away by the government should be the

first thing that you attack. why is it that the study we need to know about first is the thing that we know least about? thank you. guest: you raise an important point. there needs to be greater accountability for the use of funds. we focus on the issue of effectiveness. what we know about how effective these programs are? one thing we did, the department of labor administers many of these programs. in the last year or two, we issued a couple reports, looking at their research agenda. how do they decide what research they are going to do on these programs? we pulled together an expert panel to identify what areas the department of labour needs to focus most especially on. far and away, the keeping our experts told us was the department labor -- a labor

needs to tell us what works and for who, because the thin -- the department of labour needs to tell us what works and for who. the department of labor needs a much greater focus on doing studies that really identify what strategies are working and for whom. part of what we found we looked at the department of labor in the past was that there wasn't greater need for transparency -- there was a greater need for transparency and accountability in how the issued studies. in 2008, they released 34 research studies in this area. about half of them had been delayed, once finished, for two to five years after they were already finished. the studies were not getting out in a timely way to help inform people on the front lines administering the program what strategies are effective. we obviously need more accountability and information in this area. host: next up is a caller from

wisconsin. scott on the line for people with experience in federal job training programs. caller: i did not see any money from the federal government. when i took my training, it was through tra. they paid the college directly. they did not give me any money. the only thing i received was an unemployment -- was unemployment. at my age, i did not know they did everything with computers at school. i could not keep up. i tried the ojt -- on-the- job training, where the better government pays someone to take you on -- federal government

pays someone to take you want and they compensate for the loss of efficiency -- on and they compensate them for the loss of efficiency. host: what is your field? caller: i am a general labor person. i worked in the auto industry. i think we are some of the first to receive funding. there is a lot of temp work. host: andrew sherrill, go ahead. guest: i think you raise a good issue. in many cases, folks who have been working in the same area for a long time and our older -- are older, it can be a difficult situation.

do i need to get retrained for a different area? is the job opportunity -- what are the job opportunities? the one-stop centers with a large influx of new customers to serve, given this economy, with vote questions -- with questions about what areas they should point folks towards to provide the best opportunities -- these are difficult issues. they have a lot of flexibility about how they might use their funds. a key theme is the need of the local areas to get a better read on what are the needs of employers. even in this economy, we still hear examples of employers in certain areas and regions saying, we are struggling to get workers with certain skills in these areas. how can a one-stop system of employment and training programs better align with some of the employer needs, even in the current economy?

host: in an op-ed last week', "what job training teaches? bad work habits." he says -- if this is the case, why would the federal government keep putting money into these programs? 1970's,in the 1960's and we did issue a report

identifying some problems with the youth summer jobs training program to the most recent work we did was looking at the implementation of the recovery act -- jobs training program. the most recent work we did was looking at the implementation of the recovery act. we again looked at the summer youth programs. we found a different story. in many cases, we found that the states we were looking at, some of them had not done summer youth employment opportunities. they had a very short time to ramp up. congress had an expectation, with the additional recovery act funds, that they would be used for summer employment opportunities for youth. we found that states and localities that we look at basically had a fairly successful story. they were able to ram up in a fairly short amount of time -- to ramp up in a fairly short amount of time, to recruit youths to go into the summer

opportunity programs. overall, nationally, they were able to place several hundred thousand youth in the summer youth jobs in 2009, 2010. we did not do a formal evaluation of the programs. the kind of feedback we got from local agency officials was these things were generally viewed as providing good opportunities for youth. green jobs was one of the areas as well. several states and localities told us they were trying to provide opportunities for youth in green areas. they had different definitions of green jobs. we werrecommended and departmenf labor -- recommended that the department of labour give some more guidance on what green jobs might be. the jobs for youth, when we look

at it, was providing meaningful opportunities. host: every monday at this time on "washington journal," we look at a segment called "your money," a chance for you to find out about what federal programs cost and what they do. we are talking about federal job training programs this morning with andrew sherrill of gao. back to the phones. a caller on the line for people who have experience with federal job programs. caller: i have listened to what everyone said you called in. -- who called in about the federal programs. i was in the program. for 15 weeks, they give us ethics and training and what to do, how to work and be out in the field.

then, the jobs are taking the money from the federal -- for 16 weeks, subsidized or unsubsidized, they will accept the money coming from the federal government. after the 16 weeks, after we have worked, they do not want us anymore. the program just repeats itself. you have another class coming out. then it is all over again. host: where were you being trained? caller: project empowerment. host: and where were you working? caller: department of health, housing, just different ones. host: what were they train you to do? to do?ning you caller: they were training less to do secretarial work -- us to

do secretarial work. i was writing job descriptions. when people come in and go over information, they put in applications. disability determinations. cases presented to the doctor before rulings. that sort of thing. the ethics wasn't taught anymore. it was basically free labor. guest: subsidized employment can provide opportunities to expand skills in certain areas, but it raises the challenges for these local, 1-top centers. -- one-stop centers.

what will give people the best opportunity for getting gainful employment that they can sustain in their local areas? it is critical, even in times where jobs are tighter, to get a good read on what the employer needs in those areas and sometimes to look at a variety of different ways of approaching that. given so much flexibility in different local areas of what they can do, once again, it places a premium on how well are they performing in terms of getting people into jobs that they can sustain, and increasing their earnings over time. host: is it a misconception for people like our caller to think that, once they get into these programs, when they get done, it will have a job? guest: i think it depends on how it was pitched by the local people running the program. to what extent was there an agreement? are the these public agencies --

are these public agencies? the most recent numbers -- if you look at how we are doing nationally, 2009, 2010, two of the biggest programs, the work force investment act and the dislocated worker programs -- getting people into jobs. for 2009, 2010, nationally, we fell below the performance goals. a performance goal was to get about 80% of people in jobs and they achieved about 50% in terms -- 50%. in terms of retaining jobs, they were closer, missing those goals by about five percentage points. on the third goal of people's earnings, the programs exceeded their goals in terms of exceeding the amount of annual earnings. it is a mixed picture.

they're getting people into jobs and helping to increase their earnings, but not at the levels they had hoped to do so. host: calling from livingston, new jersey, diana on our line for democrats. you're on the line with andrew sherrill of the gao. caller: i participated in a job- training program through the department of health and human services. i completed 180 hours of specialized skill training in helping physicians in hospitals and other eligible providers to implement electronic health records. supposedly, there is such as federal demand that the federal government put -- there is such a demand that the federal government put the money into these programs. i felt that the program was not monitored. now i have been left on my own to figure out where i fit in. i seend look for job ads,

they want numerous -- when i look for job ads, i see they want numerous years of experience or degrees. they do not assist us in putting us up with vendors of the software or hospitals. there is no follow-through. we went through the program. now we are on our own. no one wants to hire you because you just went through this four- month to five-month certification. how well are these certifications valued in the field? do not these colleges have an obligation to help us -- assistance in obtaining jobs?

host: do you think there was a certain stigma attached to your job application because you had gone through a federal job- training program? caller: there are not accepted or -- they are not accepted or valued. there is discussion from people, in order to be accepted into the program, you had to have a health care or i.t. background. other people are also not finding jobs. it depends on how much experience and how much credentials you have, but you're still not been accepted. where is the demand to develop this workforce? guest: the health care professions are generally one of the areas where many parts of the country -- this is cited as an area with an expanding job

need -- or employer need for additional people. it's on that are pointing out an area for potential improvement -- it sounds like you are pointing out an area for potential improvement. your experience sounds like, once you went through that, you're kind of on your own. what you're suggesting is that programs need to factor in more of -- given these credentials, given the kinds of training you are getting, what is the likelihood, what are the possible connections and routes to people actually landing jobs? host: our last call for our guest comes from marion, ohio. caller: this is a very serious problem we are dealing with. the system is based to have jobs in the system. we have failing education, training, no jobs at the end.

obama has blamed education people, and they deserve some blame, but it really goes back to creating jobs. the dog that could be created if we reduced taxes and regulation -- jobs that could be created if we reduced taxes and regulation. i will hang up and listen. guest: job creation is a key issue before congress and the administration. there have been a lot of strategies proposed as areas where we need to pay attention to go forward. i imagine there will be a lot of discussion on the different proposals in the -- and the president's job proposal plan. the employment and training side of this -- there is this idea of lifelong learning. our economy has a lot of churning. people change